vantreeck@logic.DEC (07/03/85)
F. Pereira pointed out that it is difficult to convert between Edinburgh and Micro-Prolog. I think that problems of conversion between implementations is not due to syntax. The problem is due to differences in semantics which are reflected by different syntaxs. Before we can begin thinking about a standard syntax for Prolog, we need to standardize the semantics. But implementers can't even agree on what cut means. - George Van Treeck
fgm@icdoc.UUCP (Frank McCabe) (07/08/85)
The standard micro-PROLOG system includes a package which 'translates' between the 'standard' (quotes intentional) edinburgh syntax and micro-PROLOG syntax. This doesn't do a particularly good job on standard micro-PROLOG although the systems on sigma-PROLOG and MacPROLOG do a great deal better. The problems over semantics are very hard to solve; however not even Edinburgh PROLOG systems agree over how to implement cut! (For proof of this see C.D.Moss's article on the differences between cur on various systems).